Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 13644 (BOM)

CONCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD THR PLANT HEAD PARIMAL P PARAUHA v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECERETARY AND OTHERS

WP/12827/2026 · 2026-09-23

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 928wp12827.26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 928 WRIT PETITION NO. 12827 OF 2026 M/S CONCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS LTD THR PLANT HEAD PARIMAL PARAG PARAUHA VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECERETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pandhari Cheble AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. K.S. Hoke Patil … CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 23.09.2026. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Company and is a licenses holder, whose licenses has been suspended vide order dated 18.09.2026. 2. According to the petitioner, the unit of the petitioner was inspected by the Licensing Authority and after observing various breaches of the conditions of the license, a show cause notice dated 16.07.2026 was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit the written explanation within a period of 7 days upon receipt of the notice. The petitioner has given his explanation to the said show cause notice on 08.09.2026. After which the order of suspension of licenses of the petitioner has been passed on 18.09.2026 for a period of 30 days commencing from 22.09.2026 to 21.10.2026. It is the contention of the petitioner that although there is a remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 85 (3) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder, 2 928wp12827.26.odt the order impugned does not give sufficient time to the petitioner to approach authority for filing appeal as provided under the Rule. The order impugned has been issued on 18.09.2026 and it is given effect on 22.09.2026, itself which leave sufficient time for the petitioner to approach the statutory authorities to challenge the order and obtain stay. 3. In view of the aforementioned background the petitioner has approached this Court with a limited prayer seeking protection. However, considering that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, only relief that can be granted to the petitioner is by directing not to give effect to the impugned order for a period of 10 days till the petitioner approaches the appellate authority and obtain necessary orders. In view of the aforesaid observations I pass the following order : ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 18.09.2026, issued by the Joint Commissioner, (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division) and Licensing Authority, Food and Drug Administration, M.S. Chhatgrapati Sambhajinagar, shall not be given effect for a period of 10 days from passing of this order by this Court, so as to enable the petitioner to file statutory appeal. (ii) The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. (iii) The learned AGP appearing for the respondents-State shall communicate this order to the concerned authorities. ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ) mahajansb/